/film/ - FILM

2-The story doesn't try at all

I'm considering reading the book hoping this doesn't happen there but for all the "it's about what it means to be a human", the movie does a very bad job at exploring this.

Every Replicant is portrayed as a defective machine or a psychopath to some degree making it impossible to sympathise with them at all.

Stripper lady has no problem letting herself being explored and then beating the crap out of Deckard (for really no good reason), Leon is a straight up fucked up dude with homicidal tendencies, the second replicant girl actually uses and manipulates the dude she finds to get some shelter, a meal and then convinces him to introduce their maker and it's made clear that both replicants in that scene know they are manipulating a horny nerd. The main replicant itself freezes a dude to the death (implied) and kills his maker by sticking his fingers in his eye-sockets (and we don't even see the nerdy dude afterwards too).

After this whole shitshow making them seem like truly horrible people or very defective and dangerous machines, how is the viewer supposed to think of them as humans at all or make any comparisons? Just because of their looks?

The lady that Deckard meets is presented in an entirely different light, being homemade by that company and shown with the dylema of not even knowing what she is, making her a character that can indeed be used for the main plot point, but everyone else botches it completely.

The very last scene in the rooftops has the replicant acting like a crazed madmen, howling and running like an animal, further detaching him from any human perspective there might have been, especially since it makes him an agressor instead of just a dude who's trying to run away. His monologue in the end about the things he saw might be touching but it's a pretty bad "tell and not show" that comes way too late.

I've heard it said that this is comparable to a story about southern american states slaves trying to run away and a slave master being sent after them back when slavery was a thing, where it would make people consider their view on how slaves are treated and looked at.

But if the entire movie consisted of the slaves going around killing people and chasing their captors instead of just trying to run away, it would sabotage itself and everyone would just go "see, this is why we keep them in chains".

I'd expected a lot more from it, especially in terms of dialogue. Maybe it's because I didn't had the fancy narration (that apparently nobody likes?) to further detail this, but there doesn't seem to be any debate or ideas being challenged anywhere at all, just weird inexplicably shit all the time.

For instance, why isn't it shown how replicants were treated, or what they had seen?

Why do they know about their failsafe to begin with, instead of the movie being about them trying to run away and finding that their escape attemps are futile anyway?

Why do people even chase after them if they die so fast anyway?

How and why did that lady even get a job as an exotic dancer if they wanted to go away or arrived recently? Was that just an excuse to show her breasts?

Why did Deckard forced himself into the other lady without making any sort of quip about it, telling her that her unease with the situation made her not the product at all?

Why don't Deckard and the psycho in the end trade words a lot more, with the replicant trying to argue for his own freedom on the grounds that they aren't that different, humans also made to be exploited by corporations and made of pre-programmed responses anyway?

If the lack of debate and crazyness of the last scene is justified with him being full of grief due to his girlfriend death, why does he spare Deckard in the end?

Why is the last bit about how "now nobody will know what I know" instead of "we're better than you, human. We can spare lives"

And why does the movie end where it ended? So Deckard is a Replicant too. Good! Let's get this show on the road!

Maybe he always knew that but kept acting it so he wouldn't be retired himself.

Maybe he thinks that this is a way to become a human, despite following the orders of everyone else like he was programmed.

Maybe his superiors are beginning to suspect he knows what he is. This could even be a good turning point where the other replicants try to convince Deckard of what he is and in the end he says he always knew what he was.

There is definitely potential for a very cool story and lots of philosophy debates to be had here, I just don't think the movie ever even bothered that much with it.

I haven't seen Blade Runner in a while but I didn't like much about it besides the soundtrack and the aesthetics of the future world. Given the movie's cultural significance I expected to enjoy it much more. I was barely even interested in the story. If I rewatched it I don't think I'd change my opinion but I'd probably be able to explain my disappointment in greater detail.

The version I watched made it less obvious that Deckard was a replicant. It's a little annoying that there are so many different versions. To me that indicates the director saw deficiencies and tried to find different ways to improve it.

>>9765

>there are so many different versions

??? I though there was only the original and the director's cut, with the latter having removed the narration and the happy ending.

>>9768

Not a regular here, sorry.

>It actually is a very emotional film.

How? It shows you a bunch of psychopaths for 95% of the movie and twists the behaviour of a single one in the end to try and wrench some emotion out of you.

Deckard is as plain as a character can be too and the movie seems to not understand "show, don't tell" at all.

What kind of emotion could it even have gotten from anyone, aside from a few laughs at Roy's performance while chasing Deckard, or a few boners with the titty scene?

>>9770

yikes

It established the Cyberpunk genre and for that everyone is now forced to suck it's dick by saying it's a great film.

>>9773

It *is* a great film though.

>>9774

it *isn't*

>>9768

>How are there people here still on the "Blade Runner is boring" stage?

But no one really said that, especially not OP who gave a very detailed account of specific flaws he noticed

>>9768

>>9771

>>9774

If this is the best one cay say in favour of Blade Runner (i.e. nothing at all) then it can't possibly be that good a movie or something more would have been said.

>>9773

I was under the impression Cyberpunk was already established with Johnny Mnemonic but apparently it only came much later. If it was the birth of the genre, people should indeed be gratefull for it but certainly not suck it's dick this much, though.

>>9780

>If this is the best one cay say in favour of Blade Runner (i.e. nothing at all) then it can't possibly be that good a movie or something more would have been said.

?

It's self evidently great. You just don't like it.

>>9777

He said that the story wasn't interesting you fool.

>>9776

You're not me.

>>9783

But then who are we?

>>9782

>It's self evidently great.

Nothing is self evident, especially self evidently great. There are objective reasons why some things are good and others are bad and there are subjective reasons as to why someone prefers some things over others.

If you can't think of a positive reason as to why you liked it, then perhaps there isn't one and you like it for some other reason that has nothing to do with the movie, such as peer pressure.

>He said that the story wasn't interesting you fool.

If that's what you took from my 2 posts, I guess that explains why you like the movie so much.

Come to think of it, your minimalist answers that don't actually say anything are pretty much the dialogue for the movie as well.

But do go ahead and quote where I say the story isn't interesting.

Because my complain is exactly the opposite, it's a great movie with an excellent premise for an amazing story that's clearly underneath everything else but rarely gets the chance to take fold and be executed.

>>9786

I'd say the film's strong point is its atmosphere and design, which are worth the watch alone. It creates a very believable,appealing world and takes its time to show it to us. I don't know about you, but it's a world I wanted to see more of when the film ended. I find the themes of empathy executed quite well, really. The replicants are indeed portrayed as psychopaths, but you get just enough sympathy with them and their motivations to make it interesting. The androids in the book are far less sympathetic.

>>9787

>it's a world I wanted to see more of when the film ended

Me too, I wanted to see what the Replicant's life\work is like, I wanted to learn more about Deckard or Tyrell, I wanted to know so much more about that world but very little information is given and the movie ends precisely when it should have started instead.

I agree that the visuals are very well done and the atmosphere it passes along is enough of a reason to watch it, but it's weird that that alone was enough to hold the movie.

>you get just enough sympathy with them and their motivations to make it interesting

And this is were I disagree. As far as we are told, they are just passing through trying to run away like common criminals. Leon is only shown in very violent situations, 2 of them are shown manipulating a human to meet their maker and Roy's entire motivation is "I don't want to die".

It's like seeing a bunch of cars going down a slope with no driver, some crashing into people and one of the cars is worried because it's fuel is running low. And you're supposed to question what it means to be a driver.

>>9787

>but you get just enough sympathy with them and their motivations to make it interesting.

This. The film hooked me with the way I got emotionally invested in interactions between the replicants and the humans. Self inserting and all that.

Gripped me much more than I expected.

>>9788

You're either young or evil at heart.

>>9789

>The film hooked me with the way I got emotionally invested in interactions between the replicants and the humans.

Which ones? The eye gouging or the seduction and manipulation? Was it the howling near the end? Or the part where they keep trying to snap necks?

>self inserting

Well, Deckard's pretty much a Mary Sue so that's expected...

>You're either young or evil at heart.

And you're using dumb wrong assumptions to avoid presenting a valid argument.

>>9768

I know those feels: was the same for me. I was pretty ambivalent with the first viewing, but rewatched it on Blu-ray and I was impressed. It's pretty top-shelf sci-fi, as denoted by the fact that there is ten times as much going on in a scene as the core story suggests

Help me out here, OP, I don't remember the movie that well.

>Replicants make no sense

I can't actually see your point here. The difference between machines and synthetic humans are not so strong in that society. They see synthetic humans as machines just because they were not naturally made.

>but they can't be treated like machines, it's just imoral

Well, morality is build by the society. In this society they just don't see things like this. Synthetic humans are just tools build to help, like machines. It may seem wrong to us, but that's the point. It's like you trying to explain to a islamic that some of their values shouldn't be followed. They just won't agree.

>the memories

This is something I don't remember well. If I recall correctly, the use of memories is just applied on Rachel as a prototype, right? Replicants don't actually need it, but it will be easier to control them with this new technology.

>what does this mean for their brain? Is it organic or synthetic

I don't see how this is important. How does the communication between a biological or synthetic brain and the body can change anything? Let's just say that however it comunicates, it just works. How it does it doesn't matter for it's not the point of the movie. If it's biological, well, maybe they can use it in humans as you said, yes, but that's something yet to come because it's a new technology. I think that this is the whole point of the unicorn origami scene, isn't it? If it's this easy to make someone's mind, what can ensure that Deckard were not made as well? I particularly always thought on it as a biological brain because when Roy dies he loses everything he saw in life. As you said, that wouldn't happen in a synthetic brain.

>Every Replicant is portrayed as a defective machine or a psychopath

But of course. Every Replicant showed was part of the rebel psychopathic group that came to Earth, taking Rachel out of the equation. You are not suposed to sympathise with them completely. Yes, they are horrible people and must be stopped. That's why there is Blade Runners.

>but the lady was different

Yes, she didn't know she was a Replicant. She had those fake memories we talked about. But the most important thing here, she was "raised" in a peaceful, comfortable and pleasing place. The other ones were slaves in a faraway planet. The lady's way of questioning and accepting her condition was civilized, a reflection of where she lived. The other's way of getting those same answers were barbaric and violent, just like where they came from.

>we don't even see the nerdy dude afterwards

I'm pretty sure they say he was found dead.

>tell and not show

I think you are taking this rule too seriously. In this movie case, it was better not showing this scene because the whole movie is in Deckard's point of view. He is a poor man living in a shithole and he has never seen space, he can hear about it in the news and listening what people talk, but he never gazed it with his own eyes. That lack of a visual reference makes that scene as impactant to us as it is to Deckard. Sometimes, showing too much is as bad as talking too much.

>>9840

Segunda Parte:

From this point you raised a lot of questions, I will try to answer them.

>why isn't it shown how replicants were treated, or what they had seen?

Just what I said. We already know how they were treated and what they had seen.

>Why do they know about their failsafe to begin with, instead of the movie being about them trying to run away and finding that their escape attemps are futile anyway?

What is the "rooftops" if not that finding that you describe here? Roy see no sense in his rebelion anymore and find his attempts to run from death futile. Knowing about their failsafe is what makes them start the whole psychotic run to begin with. Why do they know it? I don't think it would be easy to make it a secret when there is lots of slaves dying after three years of work. Maybe they just learned about it from experience. Maybe it was no secret.

>Why do people even chase after them if they die so fast anyway?

Because sometimes they go berserk killing people, mate, as they did this time. Remember that Replicant's presence is forbidden on Earth.

>How and why did that lady even get a job as an exotic dancer if they wanted to go away or arrived recently? Was that just an excuse to show her breasts?

Sorry, I don't remember this good enough, but I will go with you sugestion and say it was just to show her breasts. I'm okay with that.

>Why did Deckard forced himself into the other lady without making any sort of quip about it, telling her that her unease with the situation made her not the product at all?

Same here. I don't remember what lady are you talking about.

>Why don't Deckard and the psycho in the end trade words a lot more, with the replicant trying to argue for his own freedom on the grounds that they aren't that different, humans also made to be exploited by corporations and made of pre-programmed responses anyway?

Because neither Deckard or Roy are "thinkers", they just act. Roy is basically a savage and Deckard is just doing his job. They know that each one meant something with their actions, but they didn't express it with words or arguments. Anyway, I don't think it was necessary to have such arguments.

>If the lack of debate and crazyness of the last scene is justified with him being full of grief due to his girlfriend death, why does he spare Deckard in the end?

His lack of debate isn't justified with grief for his "girlfriend". He just go crazy because he has nothing else to fight for. It's like the ending of Scarface, where Tony just goes on because he knows it's the end. Why does he save Deckard, you ask? Because, as I said some question ago, he finds his attempts to rebel agains death futile. He would die anyway, so he chose to have someone at his side.

>Why is the last bit about how "now nobody will know what I know" instead of "we're better than you, human. We can spare lives

Because that's now how the character was. He was not trying to prove himself better than humans, he was trying to survive.

I find this a great movie, and that's why I made this huge post answering everything I could. Your points, in my vision, is just that you don't understand, or don't want to understand, the characters. With this I hope I could have helped you to see another angle.

>>9762

It's mostly for the visuals and atmosphere, and normalfags also like to mention the 2deep4u story even though it is a bit of a mess. I honestly like it, it gives you a really immerse experience compared to other sci-fi films of the 80s, in this one you can actually feel the city/world despite not much being shown.

i was turning to the star wars fest (4 5 6) on the TV every year or so and I wanted to really like them, but it was apparent to even my 9 years-old self that the background characters were just standing around with nothing to do and that the whole thing was artificial, no matter how cool some of the sets or special effects were. when i first saw randomly blade runner on late night TV one day, i truly believed all the characters were possibly real, even the xtras running around on the street, the camera and story just happened to focus on a few characters instead of others. basically 80% of the appeal for me.

>>10740

a funny assessment of /film/, but why can't he say it here

>>9841

Holy moly this is the best post I've seen here in a long time and I really want to thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining this all to OP. I think his main issue is he's projecting his own societal views onto the blade runner universe and is confused that they don't link up.

>>10753

I thought I'd wait to see it later, but then again no one will be talking about it by then. So maybe I'll do it now despite my low expectations. I've never seen anything from Denis Villeneuve.

>>10763

I'd probably say if you're going to see it at all, see it at the cinema to experience the visuals in full, unless you have a really stellar home cinema system.

Let me know what you think if you do see it.

>>9784

it doesn't matter who we are

what matters is our plan

There's a fan edit from about 10 years ago now titled "the version you've never seen before" that's an interesting piece if you're really into this movie.

IIRC, the editor used the 1992 Director's Cut as the base, about 40% of it remains, and the remaining 60% are alternate scenes, deleted scenes, and scenes exclusive to the workprint. If you've watched the bonus disc and the workprint in the five-disc release you've probably seen all this stuff before, but it's nice to see it all stitched together.

> A total re-cut of Blade Runner that incorporates all deleted scenes, parts of the workprint, alternate shots from raw camera reels, with new voice-over throughout. The intention is to give as radical a new cut of the film as can be had; the result is more hard-boiled detective, with different thematic emphases.

This version with most of the narrative restored has an overall feel of a Philip Marlowe futuristic film-noir, complete with cynicism and snark from Deckard. The narrative is heavily front-loaded to the first half of the movie still, but from the length of the alternative clips, you get the idea that this was a deliberate production choice from the start of the film, the existence of so many numerous alternate scenes suggest they were shooting from several variations of the script simultaneously. The narration seems like a ditched idea rather than a forced one.

One could also apply the literary device of the unreliable narrator to the interpretation of the narration. Deckard, as a character, believes he's human, so his narration from inner dialogue reinforces his own perspective, as the film meanwhile lays out evidence to the contrary. Deckard's tone in the narration could emphasize the "cold fish" nature of personality, a replicant without emotion. Did Harrison really bomb it, or did he nail it too good?

I downloaded the fan edit from a private tracker, but I found a rip on a public tracker that appears to be the film, I didn't download it to verify or know if it's currently seeded but you can give it a try.

https://1337x.to/torrent/1231456/Blade-Runner-The-Version-You-ve-Never-Seen-Before-FANEDIT-DVDrip-x264/

>>10887

Now that IS interesting--Blade Runner with more overt noir elements. It's always called a neo-noir but that can be a nebulous label, to include just about anything with a loner, some shadows, and a mystery.

I've only seen BR once but I'm intrigued by what you say about this fanedit. Too bad it's not HD though. My past viewing was already in SD.

I honestly don't understand why Blade Runner is so popular, it removes all the most interesting parts of PKD's book. It's pretty, but so what?

>>10891

>I honestly don't understand why Blade Runner is so popular, it removes all the most interesting parts of PKD's book. It's pretty, but so what?

I think part of the popularity is the mysterious nature of the interpretation and divisive opinions that form around it. Ridley Scott and the prominent crew and actors seem more than content to remain ambiguous in their answers to any inquiries, and even contradictive. Rather than spoon feed you the answers, you're required to pore over the film, scripts, deleted scenes, and form your own inconclusive opinion that they will never validate in any definitive manner.

>>10891

It's the atmosphere and mood for me that I love. I also think it has thematic weight, but not related to the issue of what makes us human.

Blade Runner is a very beautiful movie. I don't really understand your question. Why do you need someone to explain to you why it's good or not. If you didn't like, you didn't like it; majority rule does not matter.

I wish mainstream movies like this were still made. Even scores are lacking in comparison to some of the movies that were coming out over 20 years ago.

>>10915

It's a rare mainstream film which adopts the atmospheric and contemplative tone usually only seen in arthouse films.

It is a terrible shame that these kind of films are not made with a large budget, but I suppose that's to be expected.

>>9763

First, the movie is a continuation of the hard-boiled detective genre, so it has certain stylistic choices that preclude the sort of philosophical musings you seem to expect. Have you read "The Big Sleep"? The meaning of the title is not even explained until the last few sentences of the book. The plot is somewhat covoluted, but certainly not philosophical. It is all about a detective doing his thankless job for $20 per day plus expenses. And for that money, he does his own thinking. So, don't expect the plot of Blade Runner to do the thinking for you. It is a yarn about a detective-killer who is on assignment to track down four (five) replicants. If any special musings about the meaning of life emerge from that - they'll have to happen in your own brain, on your own time and your own dime. That's the genre.

Second, don't be so quick to call the replicants psychopaths. They are neither defective humans nor an alien species. They are human creations. Humans endowed them with bodies superior to man, intellect superior to man, and emotions of a child. If they act out, whose fault is it, really? The movie is very subtle about this, but with the exception of Roy, I could make the case that every replicant really does, at one point or another, show itself to be an emotional child. If a two year old strikes you with his fists out of frustration, whose responsibility is it? Do you protect the child, or do you kill it? I mean, it did attack you for no good reason, so it must be a psychopath, right? If you deliberately made an emotional two-year-old but gave it the strength and intellect of an adult, so when it acts out, it kills instead of harmlessly wailing, whose responsibility is it? Can you even assign that responsibility? To Tyrell Corporation? That's faceless. To Tyrell alone? Sebastian? The man who made the eyes? All of them? For me, one of the points raised by the movie is that the replicants may not be responsible for who and what they are, and are therefore not responsible for their actions. The humans are. And the "human" way of taking responsibility is to murder all replicants who make it to Earth. The term "psychopath" certainly applies, but to whom?